Fear of death and polarization
Federative conflict and the politics of denial
Identity and populist communication
The vaccine wars 1 Co-authors and data
Most of the work I’m presenting here are parts of different papers co-authored with (alphabetic order): Michelle Fernandez (IPOL/UnB), Amanda Medeiros (EBAPE/FGV), Carlos Pereira (EBAPE/FGV), and Lucio Rennó (IPOL/UnB)
Nationwide online survey with 20k responses (3 waves, may, july, november) distributed with the help of Estadão
Michelle’s data on State Governors
DataSUS COVID-19 data
A call to arms, but which war will leaders fight?
The false dilemma of Bolsonaro:
Economic consequences
vs.
Risks to health
Group attainment
In-group > against social distancing (and in favor of Bolsonaro)2 Aligned with this position, presidents of Nicaragua, Daniel Ortega; Belarus, Alexander Lukashenko; and Turkmenistan, Gurbanguly Berdimuhamedow, also refused to enact measures of social distancing. At the beginning of the pandemic, the presidents of the United States, Donald Trump; Mexico, López Obrador; Russia, Vladimir Putin; and the Italian Prime Minister, Giuseppe Conte, were also reluctant to support social distancing, but ended up changing their position and started to advocate that the population stay at home.
vs.
Out-group > in favor of social distancing (and against Bolsonaro)
This also turned into a federative conflict (Bolsonaro vs. State Governors) but we will go back to that conflict later
There has been a strong increase in political polarization in Brazil since 2013, triggered by nationwide mass demonstrations that occurred that year 3 (Kingstone and Power 2017)
The increasing polarization was visible throughout all social strata, including the vulnerable population and the political and economic elite, and it took over the country during the 2018 elections 4 (Hunter and Power 2019)
The Workers’ Party (PT) center-left wing hegemonic, institutionalized and “traditional” party
Bolsonaro, who adopted the notion of “antipetismo” (Anti-PT) 5 (Bello 2019; Samuels & Zucco 2018) and grasped the expectations of another social group and promised to deliver “new politics” based on anti-establishment
fulfill the expectations of “cleansing” Brazilian politics by building a platform that was initially anti-PT, but essentially anti-party, defending the idea that all acronyms and their members would be equally part of a corrupt elite.
identity framework that denies the institutions and praises the direct connection between the political leader and the voters.
myth-making process and the homogenization of the categories “elites” and “people,” identified as antagonistic 6 (Bos et al., 2020; Mudde, 2004; Mudde & Kaltwasser, 2012)
Bolsonaro chose to govern as a minority. To circumvent this fragility, he sought to establish direct connections with voters, adopting a kind of plebiscitary presidentialism 7 (Conaghan, 2008)
In Congress, he worked by forming cyclical majorities to vote aligned with the executive branch’s preferences, constraining legislators through pressure from public opinion.
Bolsonaro governed in a permanent campaign of polarization. The conspiratorial tone has been a fundamental part of this government crusade against indefinite enemies that emerge every day 8 (Kovic & Caspar, 2019)
(the now) classical definition of a right-wing populist - exclusionary, nativist (?)
Still to understand the rise of exclusionary populism in a such an unequal country: conservatism ties
New sort of polarization (although less polarized than the left-right spectrum)
From center to left: no major disagreements (they were mostly against Bolsonaro)
But right (potentially, the bulk of Bolsonaro supporters) was now divided
Population’s fear of losing lives with the new coronavirus outweighs the risks of economic crisis
As individuals became aware of fatal victims among their acquaintances, they became more favorable of social distancing and willing to follow such policy for longer.
Also, the respondents evaluated the president’s performance as ‘worse’ and the governors’ as ‘better.’
The right was now divided: how identity connections between the group and its leader changed?
Bolsonaro’s denial of the pandemic: a political choice
– As of today, there is no Health Minister in office: Mandetta, Teich, Pazuello (interim)
– The role of military in Bolsonaro’s government (and Chloroquine)
Playing the blame game (blame attribution in populist communication)
Supreme court and the responsibility on COVID-19 crisis: Governors vs. Bolsonaro
State Governors, however, were also divided
Conjoint experiment:
Values: conservative vs. liberal
Issues: social inclusion vs. fighting against corruption
Economic policy: state oriented vs. market oriented
Political parties: coalition-based government vs. governing without an alliance
Feelings of attachment generate loyalty to the members of each group and feelings of security and prestige. However, individuals who do not belong to a group develop hostility and aversion to the values and beliefs of this group, considered rival and, potentially, enemies. The intrinsic importance of sharing identities and reciprocal loyalties can be perceived among individuals who belong to a group (in-group), and a distancing of individuals who would be outside that group (out-group), leading to biases in favor of their own group and contrary to the rival 9 (Hameleers, 2016)
Rio de Janeiro, 1904, smallpox outbreak Wikipedia
Brazil, 2020, compulsory vaccination (not anti-vax, just against obligation)
People still believe social distancing is important, but they seem to be tired of it
A vaccine run? (CORONAVAC vs. Pfizer)